BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

4 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai45Ahmedabad38Delhi26Jaipur20Kolkata18Chandigarh12Hyderabad12Guwahati11Jodhpur9Raipur7Bangalore6Chennai4Indore3Surat2Lucknow2Cuttack1Pune1Allahabad1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 286Section 2636Section 143(3)5Disallowance4Addition to Income3Section 1952Section 92Deduction2TDS2Business Income

ARIHANT RETAIL PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-1,, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1308/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1308/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Arihant Retail Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 29, Namachivaya Chetty Street, V. Income Tax -1, Old Washermanpet, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 021. [Pan: Aaics-3648-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 69C

bogus". As the entire amount of Rs.102,43,73,377/- couldn't be disallowed, hence, to protect the interest of revenue, a moderate disallowance of business purchase amounting to Rs.10,24,37,338/- (10% of the total business purchase incurred of Rs.102,43,73,377/- is hereby made and is treated as unexplained expenditure

2
Depreciation2

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. CARAT LANE TRADING PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 213/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 213/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Carat Lane Trading Pvt. Ltd., No. 32, Rutland Gate 2Nd Street, Corporate Circle -1(2), Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aadcc 1791Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. SenthamaraiKannan, Advocate
Section 194CSection 195Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

section 195 of the IT Act, in as much as the foreign payments were made without deduction of tax at source, and such payments are liable to disallowed u/s. 40(a)(i)/40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the services offered by the foreign entities amounts

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PVP VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1707/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 28

36 and subsequently, these grounds were revised and have taken the following grounds:- 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the treatment of royalty of Rs.2 Lakh as ‘income from other sources’. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that royalties are taxable under the head of Income from Business or Profession. By virtue of section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PVP VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2308/CHNY/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 28

36 and subsequently, these grounds were revised and have taken the following grounds:- 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the treatment of royalty of Rs.2 Lakh as ‘income from other sources’. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that royalties are taxable under the head of Income from Business or Profession. By virtue of section